JUDGMENT

N. P. SINGH, J.:- Leave granted.

2. The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), is the appellant in these appeals, against a common judgment of the High Court passed in several writ petitions filed by the respondents, questioning the validity of an order, issued by the Commission raising the period of practice as an Advocate from five years to seven and half years while calling applicants for interview, for appointments against the posts of Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts.

3. An advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment, to the post of Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts constituted under the provisions of M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Nine posts of such Presiding Officers had to be filled up, out of which only four posts were available to the general category candidates. (In) pursuance to the advertisement, several applications were received. In view of Section 8(3)(c) of the Act in the advertisement it was prescribed that the applicant should have practised as an Advocate or a pleader for a total period of not less than five years. It appears that in view of the large number of applications received from the general category candidates against 4 posts, a decision was taken by the Commission to call for interview only 71 applicants, although 188 applicants were eligible, as per requirement of the advertisement. Only those candidates were called for interview who had completed seven and half years of practice although in view of Section 8(3)(c), five years of practice as an Advocate or a pleader in the Madhya Pradesh was the minimum requirement. According to the writ petitioners, as the statutory requirement under Section 8(3)(c) was only five years of practice, as an Advocate or a pleader, it was not open to the Commission to raise the said period up to seven and half years and to debar applicants who had applied for those posts and who fulfilled the statutory requirement prescribed under S. 8(3)(c) of the Act.

4. The High Court allowed the said writ petitions taking the view that as the statutory qualifications in respect of the practice was only five years, raising the said period from five to seven and half years amounted to laying down a criteria in violation of the prescribed statutory criteria. A direction was given either to call all the applicants for interview who had completed 5 years of practice as required by Section 8(3)(c) of the Act or to screen the applicants through some test and thereafter to call only such applicants for interview who qualify at the said screening test.

5. The relevant part of Section 8 of the Act is as follows :

"8. Labour Courts. (1) The State Government shall, by notification constitute one or more Labour Courts having jurisdiction in such local area or areas as may be specified in such notification.

(2) The Labour Court shall be presided over by a single person to be appointed by the State Government with approval of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Presiding Officer of Labour Court unless -

(a) he has held any judicial office in India for not less than three years; or

(b) he has held any office in the Labour Department not below the rank of a Labour Officer for a period of not less than five years and is a law graduate; or

(c) he has practised as an Advocate or a pleader in Madhya Pradesh for a total period of not less than five years; or........................................................................................................................................"

From Section 8(3)(c), it is apparent that unless an Advocate or a pleader has practised in Madhya Pradesh for a total period of not less than five years, he is not eligible to apply for the post of Presiding Officer of the Labour Courts. From the affidavits filed on behalf of the Commission, it appears that large number of applications